NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-2354

______

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

v.

JASON HINES, Individually and doing business as

Dedicated Business Systems International LLC;

DEDICATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC;

TRI-STATE COMMUNICATION SERVICES LLC,

doing business as US Voice and Data, LLC

Jason Hines; Dedicated Business Systems International, LLC,

Appellants

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 2-19-cv-18461)

District Judge: Honorable Madeline C. Arleo

____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 1, 2022

____________

Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 14, 2022)

___________

OPINION*

___________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

PHIPPS, Circuit Judge.

This insurance coverage dispute concerns the scope of two commercial liability 

insurance policies. Those policies cover advertising injuries arising out of infringement 

upon another’s trade dress, but they exclude injuries arising out of trademark

infringement. When the insured was sued for trademark infringement, the insurer 

initially agreed to defend the insured with reservations, but now the insurer wishes to 

withdraw from that representation. The insurer sued, seeking a declaratory judgment, 

and the District Court entered summary judgment in its favor: the policies’ coverage of 

trade dress infringement claims did not extend to the suit for trademark infringement. On 

de novo review, we will affirm that judgment. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Insurance Policies

The two commercial insurance policies at issue were issued by State Farm Fire 

and Casualty Company, an Illinois corporation with a principal place of business in 

Bloomington, Illinois. In 2013, both policies used the same language in providing 

coverage for “personal and advertising injury.” Businessowners Policy at 23 (App. 463); 

Umbrella Policy at 2 (App. 625). That coverage included the obligation to defend against 

suits arising out of infringement “upon another’s copyright, trade dress or slogan in your 

‘advertisement.’” Businessowners Policy at 36 (App. 476) (emphasis added); Umbrella 

Policy at 16 (App. 639) (emphasis added). But that advertising injury coverage excluded 

claims “[a]rising out of the infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or 

other intellectual property rights.” Businessowners Policy at 28 (App. 468) (emphasis 

added); Umbrella Policy at 7–8 (App. 630–31) (emphasis added). Under both policies,

that exclusion did not apply to infringement in an advertisement “of copyright, trade 
3

dress or slogan.” Businessowners Policy at 28 (App. 468) (emphasis added); Umbrella 

Policy at 7–8 (App. 630–31) (emphasis added). 

Dedicated Business Systems International (‘DBSI’), a limited liability company

organized in New Jersey with no Illinois-citizen members, purchased those policies from 

State Farm for itself and its officers when conducting DBSI business. 

B. The Underlying Lawsuit

For a time, DBSI was an authorized reseller of Avaya communications 

technology. Avaya holds certain trademarks associated with its communications 

technology, and two of those trademarks are registered with the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office. The authorized-reseller arrangement terminated in 2013, but DBSI 

and one of its officers allegedly continued to access Avaya software license portals 

afterwards – without Avaya’s authorization. By doing so, they were allegedly able to 

distribute pirated licenses to customers for a handsome profit, all the while using Avaya’s 

trade name and marks to falsely represent that the software was “valid and authorized by 

Avaya.” Second Amended Avaya Compl. ¶¶ 44, 47 (App. 657). 

Believing that DBSI engaged in a “massive illegal software piracy operation,”

Avaya sued DBSI and its officer. Avaya Inc. v. Pearce, Case No. 3:19-cv-00565 (N.D. 

Cal.); Second Amended Avaya Compl. ¶¶ 1–5 (App. 644–45). Avaya’s eight-count 

complaint included federal claims for trademark infringement and copyright 

infringement. In response, State Farm sent a letter to DBSI and the officer to inform 

them that it had appointed counsel to defend them in the Avaya lawsuit. But that letter

reserved State Farm’s right to withdraw if it determined that the claims were outside of 

the policies’ scope. 
4

C. The Current Case

Consistent with that reservation of rights, State Farm initiated this lawsuit for a 

judgment declaring that it did not have to defend or indemnify DBSI and its officer in the 

Avaya lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; Fed. R. Civ. P. 57. Because the parties were 

completely diverse and because the amount in controversy is not to a legal certainty 

$75,000 or less, the District Court exercised diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; 

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc., 835 F.3d 388, 395 (2016) (quoting St. Paul 

Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288–89 (1938)). 

To obtain a declaratory judgment, State Farm moved for summary judgment. That 

motion hinged on whether Avaya’s complaint alleged a claim “arising from trademark or 

copyright infringement.” Letter Order at 4 n.4 (June 30, 2021) (App. 4). The District 

Court determined that State Farm’s policies did not cover Avaya’s trademark or 

copyright infringement claims, and on that basis, it entered summary judgment for State 

Farm. 

DBSI and the officer timely appealed that final order, bringing this matter within 

this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Selkridge v. United of Omaha 

Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2004) (“A summary judgment that fully disposes 

of all claims among all parties is final.” (quoting 15B Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. 

Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3914.28 (2d ed. 1992))). 

On appeal they dispute only the denial of coverage for the trademark infringement claim. 

II. DISCUSSION

Under New Jersey law, which governs this dispute,

1 State Farm’s duty to defend 

DBSI and Hines in the underlying lawsuit depends on whether the insurance policies’ 

1 A federal district court evaluating state law claims applies choice-of-law principles from 

the state in which it is located, here New Jersey. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 
5

language covers the underlying lawsuit’s allegations. See Flomerfelt v. Cardiello, 

997 A.2d 991, 998 (N.J. 2010). Undefined terms in insurance policies take on their 

“plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 996 (quoting Voorhees v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 

607 A.2d 1255, 1260 (N.J. 1992)). And here, neither policy specifically defines the two 

critical terms – ‘trade dress’ infringement and ‘trademark’ infringement.

By their plain language, the policies nevertheless distinguish the two terms. 

Ordinarily, different terms represent different ideas. See Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Keating 

Bldg. Corp., 513 F. Supp. 2d 55, 64 (D.N.J. 2007) (citing Prather v. Am. Motorists Ins. 

Co., 67 A.2d 135, 138 (N.J. 1949)); see also Prather, 67 A.2d at 138 (“[T]he construction 

which gives a reasonable meaning to all [the policy’s] provisions will be preferred to one 

which leaves a portion of the writing useless or inexplicable.”). The policies cover 

advertising injuries arising from trade dress infringement, but not from trademark 

infringement. By referring to both the infringement of trademark and trade dress, the 

policies contemplate different meanings for those terms. 

As a matter of intellectual property law, the concepts of trademark and trade dress 

have much in common, with trade dress often treated as a subspecies of trademark.

2 But 

313 U.S. 487, 496–97 (1941); see also Gen. Star Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 

960 F.2d 377, 379 (3d Cir. 1992). Under New Jersey’s choice-of-law principles, New 

Jersey’s substantive law will apply when there is no actual conflict between multiple 

states interested in the litigation. See Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 188 A.3d 

297, 311 (N.J. 2018). But if an actual conflict presents, New Jersey applies the mostsignificant-relationship approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. See 

id. at 318. Here, no conflict between interested states readily appears, and the parties 

apply New Jersey law in interpreting the disputed State Farm policies.

2 Under the Lanham Act, a ‘trademark’ includes “any word, name, symbol or device or 

any combination thereof” adopted by a person to “identify and distinguish” that person’s 

goods and to “indicate the source of the goods.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. And while the Act 

also protects ‘trade dress,’ see id. § 1125(a)(3), federal courts have understood that term 

to describe “the overall look of a product,” from packaging to design. Ezaki Glico 

Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte Int’l Am. Corp., 986 F.3d 250, 255–56 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting 

Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 308 (3d Cir. 2014)); see also WalMart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 209 (2000) (recognizing the 
6

this case does not concern trademark and trade dress in the abstract; it concerns insurance 

policies that exclude claims for trademark infringement and cover claims for trade dress 

infringement. Thus, this dispute depends on the differences between claims for 

trademark infringement and trade dress infringement.

Claims for trademark infringement and trade dress infringement have distinct 

elements. A claim for trademark infringement has three elements: (i) a valid and legally 

protectable mark; (ii) owned by the plaintiff; (iii) that, when used by the defendant to 

identify goods or services, “is likely to create confusion concerning the origin of the 

goods or services.” Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 472 (3d 

Cir. 1994). A claim for trade dress infringement has different elements. It requires an 

articulation of the specific features of the distinct trade dress sought to be protected 

followed by proof that an infringing design is nonfunctional; distinctive, either inherently

or through secondary meaning; and likely to confuse consumers. Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. 

v. Dempster, 764 F.3d 303, 309 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Landscape Forms, Inc. v. 

Columbia Cascade Co., 113 F.3d 373, 381 (2d Cir. 1997), and McNeil Nutritionals, LLC

v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 2007)); see also 1 J. Thomas 

McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 8.3 (5th ed. 2022 update) 

(“All courts agree that the elements of the alleged trade dress must be clearly listed and 

described. Only then can the court and the parties coherently define exactly what the 

trade dress consists of and determine whether that trade dress is valid and if what the 

accused is doing is an infringement.” (footnote omitted)).

extension of trade dress protection from “packaging” to include “the design of a 

product”). Accordingly, a trademark, as a distinct mark or emblem, may contribute to a 

product’s trade dress, its overall look.
7

For State Farm to have a duty to defend the Avaya lawsuit against DBSI and its 

officer, Avaya’s operative complaint must potentially state a claim for trade dress 

infringement. See Flomerfelt, 997 A.2d at 998.3 But it does not. The operative 

complaint never mentions ‘trade dress.’ Nor does it provide a basis for reasonably 

inferring such a claim. It does not contain the requisite description of the specific 

features of a trade dress that it seeks to protect. See Fair Wind Sailing, 764 F.3d at 309. 

Nor does it include allegations regarding two essential elements of a trade dress 

infringement claim: nonfunctionality and distinctiveness. Thus, Avaya’s complaint lacks 

allegations necessary for a trade dress claim, and the District Court did not err in applying 

New Jersey law to conclude that State Farm did not have to defend DBSI and its officer 

in the Avaya litigation. Cf. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds, 

791 F.3d 561, 567 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that an advertising insurance policy for trade 

dress did not cover a trademark infringement counterclaim because that counterclaim did 

not mention ‘trade dress’ and did not otherwise allege that the person asserting the 

counterclaim held a trade dress). 

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

3 State Farm sought declaratory judgment on the basis of Avaya’s second amended 

complaint, and the District Court granted summary judgment based on that complaint. 

Avaya later amended that complaint, and the scope of this appeal relates only to State 

Farm’s coverage obligations before that amendment.